We examine how two cognitive characteristics of chief executive officers (CEOs)—their construal level and cognitive flexibility—influence a firm’s ambidexterity (i.e., the firm’s ability to pursue exploration and exploitation simultaneously). Drawing on construal level theory, we argue that CEOs who think at more abstract levels are better able to adapt to the changing conditions of exploration and exploitation flexibly, and are thus more effective at achieving ambidexterity. We examined these proposed hypotheses in a sample of 344 Korean small- and medium-sized enterprises, using surveys of matched CEOs and executives at two points in time with a one-year lag. We find that higher CEO construal levels are associated with greater CEO cognitive flexibility, which in turn positively influence firm ambidexterity. Additionally, findings from a post hoc analysis indicate that the effects of CEO construal levels and cognitive flexibility differ depending on the firm’s size. This study provides new insights on managerial cognition and the microfoundations of ambidexterity.
BarkerVincent L., IIIMuellerGeorge C. (2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science, 48, 782–801.
2.
BaronReuben M.KennyDavid A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
3.
BarretoIlídioPatientDavid L. (2013). Toward a theory of intraorganizational attention based on desirability and feasibility factors. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 687–703.
4.
BennerMary J.TushmanMichael L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.
5.
BersonYairOregShaulWiesenfeldBatia (2021). A construal level analysis of organizational change processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 41, 100148.
6.
BierlyPaul E., IIIDamanpourFariborzSantoroMichael D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 481–509.
7.
BirkinshawJulianGuptaKamini (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 287–298.
8.
BrislinRichard W. (1980). Cross-cultural research methods. In AltmanIrwinRapoportAmosWohlwillJoachim F. (Eds.), Environment and culture (Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. 4, pp. 47–82). Springer.
9.
BromileyPhilipRauDevakiZhangYu (2017). Is R&D risky?Strategic Management Journal, 38, 876–891.
10.
BrownShona L.EisenhardtKathleen M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.
11.
BullardOlyaPennerSaraMainKelley J. (2019). Can implicit theory influence construal level?Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29, 662–670.
CartonAndrew M. (2018). “I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon”: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 323–369.
14.
CartonAndrew M.KnowltonKarrenCoutifarisConstantinos G. V.KundroTimothy G.BoysenAndrew P. (2023). Painting a clear picture while seeing the big picture: When and why leaders overcome the trade-off between concreteness and scale. Academy of Management Journal, 66, 43–66.
15.
ChangYi-YingHughesMathew (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1–17.
16.
CohenJacobCohenPatriciaWestStephen G.AikenLeona S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
CortesAndres FelipeKissAndreea N. (2023). Is managerial discretion high in small firms? A theoretical framework. Small Business Economics, 60, 157–172.
18.
DanneelsErwin (2011). Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1–31.
19.
DattaDeepak K.RajagopalanNandini (1998). Industry structure and CEO characteristics: An empirical study of succession events. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 833–852.
20.
De DreuCarsten K. W.NijstadBernard A.BaasMatthijs (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased cognitive flexibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 72–80.
21.
de VisserMatthiasFaemsDries (2015). Exploration and exploitation within firms: The impact of CEOs’ cognitive style on incremental and radical innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 359–372.
22.
DennisJohn P.Vander WalJillon S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241–253.
23.
DuttaSoumitraLanvinBrunoLeónLorena RiveraWunsch-VincentSacha, & others (2021). Global innovation index 2021: Tracking innovation through the Covid-19 crisis. WIPO. https://dx.doi.org/10.34667/tind.44315
24.
EyalTalSagristanoMichael D.TropeYaacovLibermanNiraChaikenShelly (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35–43.
25.
FörsterJensFriedmanRonald S.LibermanNira (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.
26.
FreitasAntonio L.ClarkSheri L.KimJune Y.LevySheri R. (2009). Action-construal levels and perceived conflict among ongoing goals: Implications for positive affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 938–941.
27.
FujitaKentaroHanH. Anna (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799–804.
28.
GedajlovicEricCaoQingZhangHongping (2012). Corporate shareholdings and organizational ambidexterity in high-tech SMEs: Evidence from a transitional economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 652–665.
29.
GibsonCristina B.BirkinshawJulian (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.
30.
GioiaDennis A.NagRajivCorleyKevin G. (2012). Visionary ambiguity and strategic change: The virtue of vagueness in launching major organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 364–375.
31.
GreenLeonardFristoeNathanaelMyersonJoel (1994). Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 383–389.
32.
HambrickDonald C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343.
33.
HambrickDonald C.FinkelsteinSydney (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.
34.
HambrickDonald C.MasonPhyllis A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
35.
HayesAndrew F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
HeZi-LinWongPoh-Kam (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494.
37.
HeaveyCiaranSimsekZekiFoxBrian C. (2015). Managerial social networks and ambidexterity of SMEs: The moderating role of a proactive commitment to innovation. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s201–s221.
38.
HelfatConstance E.MartinJeffrey A. (2015). Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change. Journal of Management, 41, 1281–1312.
39.
HelfatConstance E.PeterafMargaret A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 831–850.
40.
HendersonMarlone D. (2013). When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The role of construal level in attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 676–683.
41.
HerrmannPol (2002). The influence of CEO characteristics on the international diversification of manufacturing firms: An empirical study in the United States. International Journal of Management, 19, 279–289.
42.
HoangHaRothaermelFrank T. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience: Exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 734–758.
43.
IslamGaziEndrissatNadaNoppeneyClaus (2016). Beyond ‘the eye’ of the beholder: Scent innovation through analogical reconfiguration. Organization Studies, 37, 769–795.
JansenJustin J. P.VeraDusyaCrossanMary (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 5–18.
46.
JunniPaulinaSaralaRiikka MTarasVasTarbaShlomo Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.
47.
KammerlanderNadineBurgerDominikFustAlexanderFueglistallerUrs (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 582–602.
48.
KellerTobiasWeiblerJürgen (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22, 54–71.
49.
KershawTrina C.OhlssonStellan (2004). Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: The case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(1), 3–13.
50.
KissAndreea N.LibaersDirkBarrPamela S.WangTangZacharyMiles A. (2020). CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 41, 2200–2233.
51.
KissAndreea N.CortesAndres FelipeHerrmannPol (2022). CEO proactiveness, innovation, and firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 33, 101545.
52.
KnightEricParoutisSotirios (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38, 403–432.
53.
LammersJoris (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 475–480.
54.
LangeDonaldBoivieStevenWestphalJames D. (2015). Predicting organizational identification at the CEO level. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1224–1244.
55.
Laureiro-MartínezDaniellaBrusoniStefano (2018). Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision-making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 1031–1058.
56.
Laureiro-MartínezDaniellaBrusoniStefanoZolloMaurizio (2010). The neuroscientific foundations of the exploration–exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3, 95–115.
57.
LavieDovevStettnerUrielTushmanMichael L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155.
58.
LedgerwoodAlisonTropeYaacovChaikenShelly (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 32–51.
59.
LeeYounggeunHoweMichaelKreiserPatrick M. (2019). Organisational culture and entrepreneurial orientation: An orthogonal perspective of individualism and collectivism. International Small Business Journal, 37, 125–152.
60.
LevinthalDaniel A.MarchJames G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S1), 95–112.
61.
LevittBarbaraMarchJames G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
62.
LibermanNiraSagristanoMichael D.TropeYaacov (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523–534.
63.
LibermanNiraTropeYaacov (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201–1205.
64.
LubatkinMichael H.SimsekZekiLingYanVeigaJohn F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.
65.
MaierNorman R. F. (1930). Reasoning in humans. I. On direction. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10, 115–143.
66.
MarchJames G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
67.
MartinMatthew M.RubinRebecca B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76, 623–626.
68.
McNamaraPeterBaden-FullerCharles (1999). Lessons from the Celltech case: Balancing knowledge exploration and exploitation in organizational renewal. British Journal of Management, 10, 291–307.
69.
MillerDannyFriesenPeter H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1–25.
70.
MillerDannyToulouseJean-Marie (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms. Management Science, 32, 1389–1409.
71.
MomTom J. M.van den BoschFrans A. J.VolberdaHenk W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–828.
72.
MorrisonMichael (2021). Construal level is stable within-person over time: A repeated-measures study of construal level and outcomes [Doctoral dissertation]. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
73.
NohriaNitinGulatiRanjay (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation?Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245–1264.
74.
O’ReillyCharles A., IIIDoerrBernadetteCaldwellDavid F.ChatmanJennifer A. (2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 218–231.
75.
O’ReillyCharles A.IIITushmanMichael L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–81.
76.
O’ReillyCharles A., IIITushmanMichael L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 324–338.
77.
PatilShefali V.SrinivasSantosh B.TussingDanielle V.RheeJunyeon (2025). Addressing the flexible use of cognitive flexibility constructs: Toward a multifaceted approach. Academy of Management Annals, 19, 74–131.
78.
PlambeckNilsWeberKlaus (2010). When the glass is half full and half empty: CEOs’ ambivalent interpretations of strategic issues. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 689–710.
79.
PodsakoffPhilip M.MacKenzieScott B.LeeJeong-Yeon.PodsakoffNathan P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
80.
RaischSebastianBirkinshawJulianProbstGilbertTushmanMichael L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.
81.
RenYiZuoChenyiMingHuaJiangYingHuangSilin (2023). Construal level among poor children: Executive function implications. British Journal of Psychology, 114, 638–661.
RosingKathrinFreseMichaelBauschAndreas (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974.
84.
RothaermelFrank T.DeedsDavid L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221.
85.
SamimiMehdiCortesAndres FelipeAndersonMarc H.HerrmannPol (2022). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 33, 101353.
86.
SampsonRachelle C.ShiYuan (2020). Are U.S. firms becoming more short-term oriented? Evidence of shifting firm time horizons from implied discount rates, 1980–2013. Social Management Journal, 44, 231–263.
87.
SchilkeOliver (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 179–203.
88.
SlepianMichael L.MasicampoE. J.AmbadyNalini (2015). Cognition from on high and down low: Verticality and construal level. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 1–17.
89.
SmithSteven M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory, problem solving, and creativity. In SmithSteven M.WardThomas B.FinkeRonald A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 135–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90.
SmithWendy K.TushmanMichael L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.
91.
SpectorPaul E.BrannickMichael T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305.
92.
SteinbachAdam L.GamacheDaniel L.JohnsonRussell E. (2019). Don’t get it misconstrued: Construal level shifts and flexibility in the upper echelons. Academy of Management Review, 44, 871–895.
93.
TarbaShlomo Y.JansenJustin J. P.MomTom J. M.RaischSebastianLawtonThomas C. (2020). A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6), 1020487.
TomczykDavidLeeJunghyunWinslowErik (2013). Entrepreneurs’ personal values, compensation, and high growth firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 51, 66–82.
96.
TripsasMaryGavettiGiovanni (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147–1161.
TropeYaacovLibermanNira (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
99.
TropeYaacovLibermanNiraWakslakCheryl (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95.
100.
TushmanMichael L.RomanelliElaine (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.
101.
VallacherRobin R.WegnerDaniel M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1), 3–15.
102.
VallacherRobin R.WegnerDaniel M. (1989). Levels of personal agency : Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.
103.
van HouwelingenGijsvan DijkeMariusDe CremerDavid (2015). Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 878–891.
104.
van NeerijnenPepijnTempelaarMichiel P.van de VrandeVareska (2022). Embracing paradox: TMT paradoxical processes as a steppingstone between TMT reflexivity and organizational ambidexterity. Organization Studies, 43, 1793–1814.
105.
VenugopalAparnaKrishnanT. N.UpadhyayulaRajesh SrinivasKumarManish (2020). Finding the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: Demystifying the role of top management behavioural integration. Journal of Business Research, 106, 1–11.
106.
VenusMerlijnJohnsonRussell E.ZhangShuxiaWangXiao-Hua (Frank)LanajKlodiana (2019). Seeing the big picture: A within-person examination of leader construal level and vision communication. Journal of Management, 45, 2666–2684.
107.
VossGlenn B.VossZannie Giraud (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains. Organization Science, 24, 1459–1477.
108.
WallaceJ. CraigLittleLaura M.HillAaron D.RidgeJason W. (2010). CEO regulatory foci, environmental dynamism, and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 48, 580–604.
109.
WangYiChenYangWangNianxinNevoSaggiKouGangAlsaadiFawaz E. (2020). Impact of the strategic role of IT on explorative and exploitative innovation activities: The role of environmental uncertainty. Decision Sciences, 51, 542–574.
110.
WardThomas B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.
111.
WardThomas B. (1995). What’s old about new ideas? In SmithSteven M.WardThomas B.FinkeRonald A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 157–178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
112.
WardThomas B.FinkeRonald A.SmithSteven M. (2013). Creativity and the mind: Discovering the genius within. Boston, MA: Springer.
113.
WiesenfeldBatia M.ReytJean-NicolasBrocknerJoelTropeYaacov (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 367–400.
114.
WongElaine M.OrmistonMargaret E.TetlockPhilip E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1207–1228.
